1. Miranda Aho 1 Audrey L. Mayer 1,2 (almayer@mtu.edu) Mark Rouleau 1 1 Department of Social Sciences 2 School of Forest Resources and Environmental Science Michigan Technological University INFORMATION AND MANAGEMENT GOALS OF FAMILY FOREST OWNERS IN THE UPPER PENINSULA

2. COMMUNICATION WITH AND AMONG FAMILY FOREST OWNERS Schubert JR and AL Mayer. 2012. Peer influence of nonindustrial private forest owners in the Western Upper Peninsula of Michigan. Open Journal of Forestry 2(3):147-155 Lind-Riehl J, S Jeltema, M Morrison, G Shirkey, AL Mayer, MD Rouleau, R Winkler. 2015. Family legacies and community networks shape private forest management. Land Use Policy 45:95-102. Rouleau M, J Lind-Riehl, M Aho, AL Mayer. In prep. Failure to communicate: Inefficiencies in voluntary incentive programs for forest owners in Michigan.

3. NEIGHBORS, PEER INFLUENCE AND FAMILY FOREST OWNERS

4. WHAT WE KNOW NIPF owners get information about management from neighbors almost as often as from professional sources; adoption rates are higher (West et al, 1988; Fernholz, 2004; Mercker & Hodges, 2007) Landowners don’t know many neighbors (Gass et al, 2005) Number of neighbors known is impacted by the length of ownership and distance from primary residence (Rickenbach & Kittredge, 2009) Landowners may manage based on perceived results of neighbors’ management (Rickenbach et al, 2005) Peer influence affects management more than professional advice (West et al, 1988) Communities may have opinion leaders that other members follow (Rogers and Schoemaker, 1971)

5. OUR STUDY Our questions: Are management decisions of WUP family forest owners influenced by the way their neighbors manage their land? If neighbors are influencing each others’ management, is it indirectly or directly? 34 Interviews: ~50% were influenced by neighbors 32% directly influenced, 38% indirectly influenced, 21% influenced in both ways

6. MANAGEMENT GOALS OF FAMILY FOREST OWNERS AND VOLUNTARY INCENTIVE PROGRAMS

7. Used by land management agencies to encourage sustainable land use practices on private property Incentives assume rational choice, are mainly economic (tax relief, cost share) Social influence not considered, utilized Many programs for private forests in Michigan: Commercial Forest (timber production, public access) Qualified Forest Property (management plan, timber production) Forest Legacy Program (conservation easements) Forest Stewardship Program (management plan, education) MI Working Forest Carbon Offset Program VOLUNTARY INCENTIVE PROGRAMS

8. VIP ENROLLMENT AND INFORMATION Enrollment low: VIPs require forest management plan, only 5% landowners have them We conducted interviews to figure out why Western 6 counties of Upper Peninsula of Michigan 37 landowners (some VIP participants, some not) 24 program managers and “key informants” (e.g., private foresters, land and environmental organizations)

9. Characteristics of agency/business Organizational goals Geographic area Responsibilities of position Manner and frequency of contact with landowners Mechanisms and direction of information flow Level of involvement/support for VIPs Land tenure Management plans Social/community relationships VIP knowledge Sources of advice and information Knowledge of neighboring properties SEMI-STRUCTURED INTERVIEWS Landowner questionsProgram manager/Key informant questions

10. FAMILY & NEIGHBORS SHAPE LAND USE Percent of Interviews Coded with Theme Average times coded per interview Theme a OverallVIP participantsNon-participantsOverallVIP participantsNon-participants Economic 849476462 Family 899486657 Neighbors Similar b 9710095656 Neighbors Different b 879481453 Media b 689467342 Opinion leaders b 627552231 Organizations b 8110071453 VIPs b 627552232

11. COMMUNITY NORMS SHAPE LAND USE Clear-cutting as a land management practice is looked down upon Cultural conflict (Scandinavian vs. American) on community perception of public access to private lands Many landowners knew of Commercial Forest, esp. Public Access clause Public access was important to them, but few wanted public access on their own property

12. FAMILY FOREST OWNERS AND PROGRAM MANAGERS

13. Outreach passive and one-direction at higher levels (federal, state) Newsletters, emails Outreach active and bi-directional at local levels Walking land with landowner Budget cuts have reduced this outreach Family is the most important source of information and “norming” of land management objectives for non-VIP participants Neighbors was also a source of information (particularly indirect) Opinion leaders (e.g., large landowners, local foresters) were also important sources of information More commonly mentioned by VIP participants Newsletters and emails rarely mentioned (more often mentioned by VIP participants) RESULTS: OUTREACH/INFORMATION LandownersProgram Managers/Key Informants

14. Lack of funding for information to public Lack of funding for VIP incentives Reduce awareness of VIPs to reduce risk of turning away interested landowners and “cause poor publicity” Participants far more likely to discuss economic objectives for land management than non-participants More likely to manage differently than neighbors Lack or inadequate funding never mentioned Non-participants more likely to discuss family traditions or legacy in land management RESULTS: PROGRAM FUNDING LandownersProgram Managers/Key Informants

15. Foresters must write management plans Program managers: Private foresters advocate for VIPs equally as state (MDNR) foresters Key informants: Private foresters do not advocate for VIPs Private foresters see themselves in competition with public foresters Identified as good sources of information particularly if local, family members, or neighbors Do not differentiate between private and public foresters Within social network is more important RESULTS: ROLE OF FORESTERS LandownersProgram Managers/Key Informants

16. Landowners distrust in government caused by: impressions of “poor service” Inadequate VIP funding Hidden fees or regulatory burden Private foresters perceive competition from public foresters, low opinion of “fit” of VIPs with landowner goals Anti-government sentiment common Common reason for not participating in VIP Distrust of “Lansing” foresters Fear of regulations or restrictions on land use, extra taxes or penalties RESULTS: GOVERNMENTAL DISTRUST LandownersProgram Managers/Key Informants

17. CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS Outreach to landowners should be more diverse, take advantage of social networks and opinion leaders Current communication (newsletters, websites) is ineffective Local foresters important Private foresters need incentive to be advocates for VIPs VIPs focused on land management for goals related to family traditions and heritage may be well-received May also be much less expensive than current programs Certainly less expensive than raising incentive $ to levels necessary to substantially increase enrollment Distrust of government not related to poor service or lack of funding, but geographic distance and fear of additional regulatory burden Need more localized forest management agency structure Wisconsin county forests as model

18. THANK YOU! QUESTIONS?